FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > CPTPP
CPTPP
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55858490.amp Good to get some sort of a trade deal. Doesn't seem that it will be financially much benefit. Politically perhaps positive. Could bar China from joining CPTPP. Potential for the growth of these countries or not, looking on a map, all of these countries are a very, very long way away. Well, it's something." These countries are predicted to grow 3 x more than the e.u in the next 20 years. The modelling for gdp growth is static not dynamic. ( for those that dont know what this means) Static mean you add a multiplier onto everything you already export eg you export £100 of goods you multiple it by 1.2 and saybyoull export £120 of goods. If you dont export something ( typically insurance say) you can no add a multiplier. £0 x1.1 =0 so new markets aren't figured into the calculation. We will also be signing trade deals with these coutnries. Fwiw. The uk is on average as far from all these countries as they are from 1 another. The Pacific is f*ing massive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
"Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit. So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss. +0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years). It is pertinent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
"The weirdest thing is this has now been confirmed by multiple sources the uk have been granted since Wednesday and the bbc have only just reluctantly done an article on it 2 hours ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent."Brexit has happened. What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it? It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent."Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks. The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse. So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit. Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it."With the TCA we pretty much have market access no quote and no tarriffs and no meed to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55858490.amp Good to get some sort of a trade deal. Doesn't seem that it will be financially much benefit. Politically perhaps positive. Could bar China from joining CPTPP. Potential for the growth of these countries or not, looking on a map, all of these countries are a very, very long way away. Well, it's something. These countries are predicted to grow 3 x more than the e.u in the next 20 years. The modelling for gdp growth is static not dynamic. ( for those that dont know what this means) Static mean you add a multiplier onto everything you already export eg you export £100 of goods you multiple it by 1.2 and saybyoull export £120 of goods. If you dont export something ( typically insurance say) you can no add a multiplier. £0 x1.1 =0 so new markets aren't figured into the calculation. We will also be signing trade deals with these coutnries. Fwiw. The uk is on average as far from all these countries as they are from 1 another. The Pacific is f*ing massive " So? 0.08% over ten years. With a speculative growth rate. 4% known loss in GDP over three years calculated from the EU. What will the average, or more relevantly modal, income per head be of these countries coated to the EU? We already have trade deals with all of the these countries except for Malaysia and Brunei. The Pacific is vast but a linked trade network as goods and supply networks pass across it. Mexico and Canada are the outliers that skew your "average" but they lie directly in the region without entire continents in-between. Is it better to trade with your, wealthy, nearest neighbours with reduced restrictions or similarly wealthy ones on the other side of the world? Again look at the map. What does the data say on this topic? Europe and the US are on-shoring to minimise the extended supply lines that were exposed during COVID. As I said, it's something and it's not a bad thing. We take what we can get now. However, pretending that it is a great benefit is a reach, wouldn't you say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it."The context and the big picture are vitally important. Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. "Are you meaning the "morons" that are voters...??  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. "What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union. It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
Are you meaning the "morons" that are voters...?? "Any chance of stopping the bullshit personal attacks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked."Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU? If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda. "Not that I remember, unless you can correct me? Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55858490.amp Good to get some sort of a trade deal. Doesn't seem that it will be financially much benefit. Politically perhaps positive. Could bar China from joining CPTPP. Potential for the growth of these countries or not, looking on a map, all of these countries are a very, very long way away. Well, it's something. These countries are predicted to grow 3 x more than the e.u in the next 20 years. The modelling for gdp growth is static not dynamic. ( for those that dont know what this means) Static mean you add a multiplier onto everything you already export eg you export £100 of goods you multiple it by 1.2 and saybyoull export £120 of goods. If you dont export something ( typically insurance say) you can no add a multiplier. £0 x1.1 =0 so new markets aren't figured into the calculation. We will also be signing trade deals with these coutnries. Fwiw. The uk is on average as far from all these countries as they are from 1 another. The Pacific is f*ing massive So? 0.08% over ten years. With a speculative growth rate. 4% known loss in GDP over three years calculated from the EU. What will the average, or more relevantly modal, income per head be of these countries coated to the EU? We already have trade deals with all of the these countries except for Malaysia and Brunei. The Pacific is vast but a linked trade network as goods and supply networks pass across it. Mexico and Canada are the outliers that skew your "average" but they lie directly in the region without entire continents in-between. Is it better to trade with your, wealthy, nearest neighbours with reduced restrictions or similarly wealthy ones on the other side of the world? Again look at the map. What does the data say on this topic? Europe and the US are on-shoring to minimise the extended supply lines that were exposed during COVID. As I said, it's something and it's not a bad thing. We take what we can get now. However, pretending that it is a great benefit is a reach, wouldn't you say?" No. 4% isn't over 3 years. It is already icnorrect and proven much smaller. The 1.8bn increase in gdp over 15 years ( 0.08%) is derived from the total members not changing( we know this isn't true though) as South Korea and Thailand are far behind the uk. This then goes to 5.5bn. And again youre using static modelling. So if you don't have a market in these countries it assumes you never will. If you read the impact assessment. That's a good place to start it indicates where the improvements are vs current trade deals. Of the 286 boxes cptp improves trade in all but 55. Mexico and Canada skew the average. So then you agree we are on average just s distant form them as they are from others. But you seem to be missing that we are indeed closer to Peru than newzealand too . Chile isn't much further. We still trade witb the e.u they haven't gone away. We have the TCA. People seem to forget that. Re your question of wealthy people the other side of the map...we trade more with China and the USA than any individual state in the e.u. I would say pretenteing we don't still trade with the e.u which you seem to gorget in your assessment is a reach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof."I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion. The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU. No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about. "Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to. We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
"Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important. "I'll refer you to my second comment on this above. When do we stop? It's done, it's not being reversed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed."I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed. If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated. Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event. But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so. "Good answer to the question I asked. When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop. Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?"We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit "Could we have joined whilst part of the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?"Tbh, I don’t know , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?"We left the EU for other reasons. However, one of the reasons people were told they should vote leave, was for the opportunity to join other trading blocks, such as CPTPP. We can stop or continue as much as we like. To compare deals. Seems pertinent to do so at the moment, when this is one of the "benefits" touted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We left the EU for other reasons.
However, one of the reasons people were told they should vote leave, was for the opportunity to join other trading blocks, such as CPTPP.
We can stop or continue as much as we like. To compare deals. Seems pertinent to do so at the moment, when this is one of the "benefits" touted. "However we are comparing a new free trade deal that has not started trading yet. There are projections but we know they can be far out. We have a trading deal with the EU, we now have CPTPP and I guess we will not really know the real effect of Brexit for another 2 - 4 years, such is the complexity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?"No, we could not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We already had roll over deals with the majority of CPTPP members, however, it is better than nothing "Cptpp goes a lot further than the rollover deals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not."So is a 'benefit' then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We already had roll over deals with the majority of CPTPP members, however, it is better than nothing
Cptpp goes a lot further than the rollover deals "How? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?"How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%. I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?"No…. Because if we had not had left the eu… the GDP of the country would be 4% better off I think the term is “biting off your nose to spite your face!”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
No…. Because if we had not had left the eu… the GDP of the country would be 4% better off
I think the term is “biting off your nose to spite your face!” "Tbf, finding £8 after losing £400 could be seen as a ‘benefit ‘? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many people can't see past the negatives it would seem. Leaving the EU is of course a financial negative. Joing CPTPP is of course a financial benefit. A smaller benefit than being in the EU, yes, but we're not in the EU. This is primary school stuff, you can all do better." Of course, finding £8 after losing £400 can be seen as a benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?"This is why the context is important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?"Do you mean a benefit or a Brexit benefit ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many people can't see past the negatives it would seem. Leaving the EU is of course a financial negative. Joing CPTPP is of course a financial benefit. A smaller benefit than being in the EU, yes, but we're not in the EU. This is primary school stuff, you can all do better. Of course, finding £8 after losing £400 can be seen as a benefit "I'm aware, thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many people can't see past the negatives it would seem. Leaving the EU is of course a financial negative. Joing CPTPP is of course a financial benefit. A smaller benefit than being in the EU, yes, but we're not in the EU. This is primary school stuff, you can all do better. Of course, finding £8 after losing £400 can be seen as a benefit
I'm aware, thanks" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
Do you mean a benefit or a Brexit benefit ? "We couldn't join as a member of the EU. We can join as a non-EU member. So it's surely a benefit of not being an EU member. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
This is why the context is important. "The context is Brexit is done. We have lost what we have lost. This is us moving forward. That's the only context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
Do you mean a benefit or a Brexit benefit ?
We couldn't join as a member of the EU. We can join as a non-EU member.
So it's surely a benefit of not being an EU member."Ok, because we left the EU we are losing 4 % of GDP but we can now join the CPTPP that is worth 0.08 % of GDP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
This is why the context is important.
The context is Brexit is done. We have lost what we have lost. This is us moving forward.
That's the only context. "Yep, finding £8 after losing £400 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun "Yeah, or we could get excited about finding £8 after losing £400? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
This is why the context is important.
The context is Brexit is done. We have lost what we have lost. This is us moving forward.
That's the only context. "Then in that case this is a piss poor benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun "Sorry Feisty that is a nonsensical argument. We remain in a net loss situation. ie still poorer/worse off. Of course it is a positive move in the right direction but until we are in a net positive situation, nothing to get excited about! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
Sorry Feisty that is a nonsensical argument. We remain in a net loss situation. ie still poorer/worse off.
Of course it is a positive move in the right direction but until we are in a net positive situation, nothing to get excited about!"True Brexit caused a 4% loss in GDP Brexit allowed the UK to join the CPTPP with a 0.08 % GDP gain. I can’t see the benefit , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
Sorry Feisty that is a nonsensical argument. We remain in a net loss situation. ie still poorer/worse off.
Of course it is a positive move in the right direction but until we are in a net positive situation, nothing to get excited about!"I'm not getting excited. Of course it's still a net loss when compared directly to EU loss. But the loss to the EU is already lost, there's no changing it. Shall we just sit around sulking about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
Sorry Feisty that is a nonsensical argument. We remain in a net loss situation. ie still poorer/worse off.
Of course it is a positive move in the right direction but until we are in a net positive situation, nothing to get excited about!
I'm not getting excited.
Of course it's still a net loss when compared directly to EU loss.
But the loss to the EU is already lost, there's no changing it.
Shall we just sit around sulking about it?"No, bit it is hilarious to call this a Brexit benefit , Benefit ‘an advantage or profit gained from something’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss." What be basically gain as part of this deal is 2 free trade agreements with countries that we would not have had as part of the EU!!! That is the crux of it… I love the way people are celebrating so hard the “we gained 8 pounds “ whilst telling the same people “the 400 pounds we lost….doesn’t matter!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss." We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We already had roll over deals with the majority of CPTPP members, however, it is better than nothing
Cptpp goes a lot further than the rollover deals
How? "Read the government impact assessment. That's your starting point. Particularly on services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting."Tbe 4% is a made up. The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We already had roll over deals with the majority of CPTPP members, however, it is better than nothing
Cptpp goes a lot further than the rollover deals
How?
Read the government impact assessment. That's your starting point. Particularly on services."I have, it’s practically identical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting.
Tbe 4% is a made up.
The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment"No it isn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm…… "No you don't. You lost £400 2 years ago. You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm…… "That's not what is happening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm…… "What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4. Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it.
The context and the big picture are vitally important.
Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit.
What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union.
It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked.
Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU?
If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda.
Not that I remember, unless you can correct me?
Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof.
I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion.
The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU.
No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to.
We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare.
Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important.
I'll refer you to my second comment on this above.
When do we stop?
It's done, it's not being reversed.
I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed.
If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated.
Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event.
But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so.
Good answer to the question I asked.
When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop.
Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP?
We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting.
Tbe 4% is a made up.
The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment
No it isn’t "Is this the same perosn telling me yesterday my data on Germany was wrong and the couldn't name the German ststs authority who released it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. What be basically gain as part of this deal is 2 free trade agreements with countries that we would not have had as part of the EU!!! That is the crux of it… I love the way people are celebrating so hard the “we gained 8 pounds “ whilst telling the same people “the 400 pounds we lost….doesn’t matter!” " Tbh, this is all they have, it is better than noting but no where near is beneficial as being in the EU , so can’t he claimed as a Brexit benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit :- Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit. So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss. +0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years). It is pertinent. Brexit has happened. What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it? It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it. The context and the big picture are vitally important. Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union. It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked. Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU? If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda. Not that I remember, unless you can correct me? Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof. I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion. The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU. No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about. Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to. We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare. Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important. I'll refer you to my second comment on this above. When do we stop? It's done, it's not being reversed. I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed. If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated. Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event. But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so. Good answer to the question I asked. When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop. Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP? We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting.
Tbe 4% is a made up.
The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment
No it isn’t
Is this the same perosn telling me yesterday my data on Germany was wrong and the couldn't name the German ststs authority who released it?"It was wrong and I stand by my statement, we are the worst performing economy in the G7 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Tbe 4% is a made up. The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment" Erm… the 4% figures is the one this government calculated by the government’s own office of budget responsibility The 0.08%……. That’s the actual estimate….. Thanks for playing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other"Based on what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Tbe 4% is a made up. The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment Erm… the 4% figures is the one this government calculated by the government’s own office of budget responsibility The 0.08%……. That’s the actual estimate….. Thanks for playing " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk."No, we are losing £400 every year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year "No we are not. We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. " No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel."I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit :- Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit. So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss. +0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years). It is pertinent. Brexit has happened. What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it? It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it. The context and the big picture are vitally important. Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union. It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked. Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU? If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda. Not that I remember, unless you can correct me? Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof. I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion. The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU. No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about. Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to. We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare. Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important. I'll refer you to my second comment on this above. When do we stop? It's done, it's not being reversed. I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed. If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated. Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event. But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so. Good answer to the question I asked. When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop. Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP? We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting.
Tbe 4% is a made up.
The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment
No it isn’t
Is this the same perosn telling me yesterday my data on Germany was wrong and the couldn't name the German ststs authority who released it?
It was wrong and I stand by my statement, we are the worst performing economy in the G7 "Then you are ignorant and wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level "You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Tbe 4% is a made up. The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment Erm… the 4% figures is the one this government calculated by the government’s own office of budget responsibility The 0.08%……. That’s the actual estimate….. Thanks for playing "The obr didn't calculate it. That's the problem. You are misunderstanding what the report was. Have you read it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit :- Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit. So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss. +0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years). It is pertinent. Brexit has happened. What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it? It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it. The context and the big picture are vitally important. Without those, people end up voting for shit like brexit. What context? This deal has nothing to do with Brexit, we didn't leave the EU to join this union. It has happened after we left the EU, the 2 are not linked. Wasn't this, amongst other such agreements, some of the reasons touted for leaving the EU? If not, then fair enough. I seem to remember this being wrapped up with the anti-EU propaganda. Not that I remember, unless you can correct me? Otherwise, this is just another 'oh I seem to remember' without any actual proof. I'm not claiming "proof" this is a discussion. The "vote leave" campaign definitely touted these kind of deals as "benefits" of leaving the EU. No I'm not going to risk a forum ban posting a link. But if you go to their website there is a section on trade. CPTPP isn't specifically mentioned. But this is the kind of thing they are talking about. Of course they touted these kind of deals, they had to. We didn't leave the EU to join CPTPP. It wasn't a straight trade. Ergo, nothing to compare. Not comparing. Simply defending the idea of putting this news into context. It's important. I'll refer you to my second comment on this above. When do we stop? It's done, it's not being reversed. I don't think anyone here is saying it's not done or that it's going to be reversed. If one of the main touted benefits of leaving the EU seems to be a fraction of what we lost through brexit. It would seem weird to pretend it's unrelated. Anyway, this is not a very interesting tangent. I am comfortable with you wanting to take away any context, you're free to discuss it as if it was an isolated event. But I think the context is important, and those who wish to discuss the larger picture are okay doing so. Good answer to the question I asked. When do we stop comparing any new deals? It would appear that some would like us to never stop. Did we leave the EU to join CPTPP? We have left the EU and we have joined the CPTPP, the Tories are claiming this as a Brexit benefit
Could we have joined whilst part of the EU?
No, we could not.
So is a 'benefit' then?
How can it be a benefit if Brexit is costing us 4% of GDP and CPTPP is projected to gain 0.08%.
I don't see that as a benefit, then again I didn't attend the Conservative school of gaslighting.
Tbe 4% is a made up.
The 0.08% is a declared undershoot. Read tbe impact assessment
No it isn’t
Is this the same perosn telling me yesterday my data on Germany was wrong and the couldn't name the German ststs authority who released it?
It was wrong and I stand by my statement, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
Then you are ignorant and wrong"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?"We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!! "Again.cptpp goes further. This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?
We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit "Then move on. It's really easy if you allow yourself to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
"Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what? "Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess. The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time". During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot. Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?
We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit
Then move on. It's really easy if you allow yourself to."Stop calling it a Brexit benefit as you obviously don’t understand what your talking about , it’s really east if you all yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell"Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?
We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit
Then move on. It's really easy if you allow yourself to.
Stop calling it a Brexit benefit as you obviously don’t understand what your talking about , it’s really east if you all yourself "Damn, soo many typos  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?
We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit
Then move on. It's really easy if you allow yourself to.
Stop calling it a Brexit benefit as you obviously don’t understand what your talking about , it’s really east if you all yourself "I'm not calling it a Brexit benefit. Have you read what I've said? BTW, can you quit with your antagonising thumb. (I'm only telling you this because you feel it's OK to tell me what to do) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell"For the last time the 4% is a long run estimate. Not an actualisation. If I say that after reviewing the e.u I 15 years your gdp will be smaller you haven't lost £400 NOW It is saying you are estimating losing £ 400 over 15 years or £26 ! Year. The obr also never said that either in their report. They said think tanks on AVERAGE estimated that. Whereby one think thank estimated a 10% gdp drop over the course of 15 years which pushed it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines "I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell
Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ? "As I said the figures you have are a snapshot, I don't really care what they are, I care about what direction they go in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing "Did you see in the impact statement where the CPTPP goes further than the trade deals we had already? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
No you don't.
You lost £400 2 years ago.
You obviously have no idea which one I picked 7 years ago either. I just not gonna sit around continuing to sulk.
No, we are losing £400 every year
No we are not.
We have no idea what next year brings. As Notme said, unless you can time travel.
I see, so we ignore forecasts? For every year GDP is down we lose out until it reaches its previous level
You're happy to ignore forecasts when they suit
I'm aware we're losing out, not sure why you think I need it explaining.
I'll say it again, we have lost that and are losing it. It's done. There's no going back.
Should we sit around sulking about it or try to move on?
We should move on, should we state that joining the CPTPP is a Brexit benefit
Then move on. It's really easy if you allow yourself to.
Stop calling it a Brexit benefit as you obviously don’t understand what your talking about , it’s really east if you all yourself
I'm not calling it a Brexit benefit.
Have you read what I've said?
BTW, can you quit with your antagonising thumb. (I'm only telling you this because you feel it's OK to tell me what to do)"The thumb is not antagonistic, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Did you see in the impact statement where the CPTPP goes further than the trade deals we had already?"Yes, it is minimal and has a tiny impact on GDP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing "Why do you lie? OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Did you see in the impact statement where the CPTPP goes further than the trade deals we had already?
Yes, it is minimal and has a tiny impact on GDP " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table"He can go look it up now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell
Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ?
As I said the figures you have are a snapshot, I don't really care what they are, I care about what direction they go in."I see, what figures can we use as a guide to determine direction ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now "PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence? "I'm not claiming to have read in. I've scanned it. Also, I didn't ask you the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence?
I'm not claiming to have read in. I've scanned it.
Also, I didn't ask you the question."You can go and look it up now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence? "There is no scenario 3 on page 33. The 4 words on the 7th sentence on the page are. "The largest estimated increases" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence?
I'm not claiming to have read in. I've scanned it.
Also, I didn't ask you the question.
You can go and look it up now "Why are you arguing with me about it? It was someone else who asked you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
PMSL, on page 43, scenario 3 what 4 words are written on the start of the 7th sentence?
There is no scenario 3 on page 33.
The 4 words on the 7th sentence on the page are.
"The largest estimated increases""Incorrect, but thanks for trying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now "He won't. Because he reads headlines and assumes he knows. Rather than reading what is actually there. Which is why he got absolutely embarrassed on Wednesday when he couldn't name the German version of the ONS. ( hence he's using thethumbs) And it's why he'll ignorantly post about 0.08% and 4% without having ever read what either document says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell
Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ?
As I said the figures you have are a snapshot, I don't really care what they are, I care about what direction they go in.
I see, what figures can we use as a guide to determine direction ? "Whatever you want, 4% and 00.8% as far as I care. The direction of movement in those figures is the important thing to show a decline or improvement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
He won't. Because he reads headlines and assumes he knows. Rather than reading what is actually there.
Which is why he got absolutely embarrassed on Wednesday when he couldn't name the German version of the ONS. ( hence he's using thethumbs)
And it's why he'll ignorantly post about 0.08% and 4% without having ever read what either document says."Here is a fact, the Uk are the worst performing economy in the G7 ( which is my initial claim ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell
Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ?
As I said the figures you have are a snapshot, I don't really care what they are, I care about what direction they go in.
I see, what figures can we use as a guide to determine direction ?
Whatever you want, 4% and 00.8% as far as I care. The direction of movement in those figures is the important thing to show a decline or improvement.
"How can we prove the direction if the initial figures are incorrect? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s make it simple for feisty In one hand I have 8 pounds………. In the other hand I have 400 pounds!! And I’ll let you pick which one you want….. So……. Hmmm……
What if over time your hand with £8 is worth £800 and the hand with £400 reduces to £4.
Time is the missing element, it could go one way or the other
Based on what?
Not sure what you mean but I will have a guess.
The figures for CPTPP are estimates, we are yet to see what the real % benefits are and unlikely to see a true reflection of the trade deal is working for a period of "time".
During that time we will also be able to establish the true costs of leaving the EU, not so much of a snapshot.
Until then all this £8 and £400 is a snapshot that shows a starting point, it could be worse over time, it could be better off for us. Time will tell
Ok, at this moment in time what are the most accurate figures ?
As I said the figures you have are a snapshot, I don't really care what they are, I care about what direction they go in.
I see, what figures can we use as a guide to determine direction ?
Whatever you want, 4% and 00.8% as far as I care. The direction of movement in those figures is the important thing to show a decline or improvement.
How can we prove the direction if the initial figures are incorrect? "You are starting to see what I'm talking about now, we don't know what the CPTPP will bring yet so it is an estimate. In 2 years time, could be 12 months we will have hard data that will produce real figures we can compare, that is the time I have been talking about. Until then, this argument isn't really proving anything that wasn't already known | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
He won't. Because he reads headlines and assumes he knows. Rather than reading what is actually there.
Which is why he got absolutely embarrassed on Wednesday when he couldn't name the German version of the ONS. ( hence he's using thethumbs)
And it's why he'll ignorantly post about 0.08% and 4% without having ever read what either document says.
Here is a fact, the Uk are the worst performing economy in the G7 ( which is my initial claim ) "Not according to the German version of the ONS and our own ONS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the other thread _orleyman said trade with the CPTPP countries and the UK was projected to grow to £30bn even without the UK becoming a member. We already traded with them when we were in the EU. So we could have had both without a 4% permanent hit to GDP. So there is no net benefit just a net loss. We haven't got a permanent 4% hit to gdp I have explained this. We were expected to grow 30bn in tbe long run. That will by the 0.08% which doesn't factor in new trade. And doesn't factor in any other countries joining but it already looks like Thailand and South Korea are. That improve the 0.8% 3 fold. No…. Because the EU already had FTA’s with both of those countries!!!! But for the sake of generosity I’ll give you your 3 fold figure…. So from 0.08 % to 0.24% Consider me sold!!!
Again.cptpp goes further.
This is well documented I tbe imapct assessment you haven't read.
Looks like a lot of people have read some headlines. Funny enough, it's the same people who usually complain about headlines
I have read the impact assessment, it is a forecast , just like the ones your were dismissing
Why do you lie?
OK what's on page 46 of the impact assessment. In scenario 1 what are the 7 lines in the data table
He can go look it up now
He won't. Because he reads headlines and assumes he knows. Rather than reading what is actually there.
Which is why he got absolutely embarrassed on Wednesday when he couldn't name the German version of the ONS. ( hence he's using thethumbs)
And it's why he'll ignorantly post about 0.08% and 4% without having ever read what either document says.
Here is a fact, the Uk are the worst performing economy in the G7 ( which is my initial claim )
Not according to the German version of the ONS and our own ONS."It is a fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun "However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations. This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is."The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7 "You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from? A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up."I haven't looked into this but from the OECD: Among G7 countries, the United Kingdom recorded the highest annual growth in 2022 (4.0%), followed by Italy (3.8%) and Canada (3.6%), while Japa | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations." Not now we can't. The EU Customs Union requires certain regulatory procedures which are incompatible with the CPTPP. We have to leave that first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations. Not now we can't. The EU Customs Union requires certain regulatory procedures which are incompatible with the CPTPP. We have to leave that first." Nightmare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up."Can’t send links, try google | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is.
The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here."So skimming the posts above, in summary. no-one really knows what the benefits might be for joking a trading bloc of countries that rim the Pacific Ocean - it’s just an estimate. However what we do know is that for trade in goods to grow in any meaningful way with the Pacific region, there will be a huge effect on the nations commitment to reducing emissions. We also now know that the loss of GDP from leaving the EU is in the region of 4% of GDP and much of that could be regained in an instant by joining the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Thatcher knew the economic benefits were there and that is why she championed it so hard. What possible reason therefore could there be to step into the unknown, knowing that any trade benefit would come at great cost ecologically when the economic damage could measurably be undone with little to no environmental impact. This is ideology. Nothing more than that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations. Not now we can't. The EU Customs Union requires certain regulatory procedures which are incompatible with the CPTPP. We have to leave that first." We haven’t joined it yet, but notwithstanding - you prove my point about it being more to do with ideology than economics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up.
Can’t send links, try google "Why are you hiding behind that nonsense? Links to official sites are allowed. As is, C&P. I've C&P from Google via the OECD. Do you disagree with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up.
I haven't looked into this but from the OECD:
Among G7 countries, the United Kingdom recorded the highest annual growth in 2022 (4.0%), followed by Italy (3.8%) and Canada (3.6%), while Japa"Germany is now 0.1% below its pre covid gdp after a revision in their stats fro Dec quarter On today ons release for the uk the uk improved its q4 from 0.8 % below to 0.6% below. Germany is expected to contract 0.2% more in q1 2023 while the uk is expected to have grown 0.3% in jan and expected to grow by about 0.6% in q1 2023 after pmi improved from 47 in Jan then 49 in Feb and 48 in march | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7" "You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from? A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up." "Can’t send links, try google" You can use links as long as they are from a reputable site. Or you could just tell us where you found the information, so that we can go and see for ourselves. I have already used Google, and it contradicts your 'worst performing economy in the G7' claim. I thought I'd give you a chance to show where you got your information from. Without that information, I will be reluctantly forced to come to the conclusion that you're deliberately lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is.
The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here.
So skimming the posts above, in summary. no-one really knows what the benefits might be for joking a trading bloc of countries that rim the Pacific Ocean - it’s just an estimate.
However what we do know is that for trade in goods to grow in any meaningful way with the Pacific region, there will be a huge effect on the nations commitment to reducing emissions.
We also now know that the loss of GDP from leaving the EU is in the region of 4% of GDP and much of that could be regained in an instant by joining the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Thatcher knew the economic benefits were there and that is why she championed it so hard.
What possible reason therefore could there be to step into the unknown, knowing that any trade benefit would come at great cost ecologically when the economic damage could measurably be undone with little to no environmental impact.
This is ideology. Nothing more than that."Emissions are created predominantly in the creation of a product rather than transportation. So green isn't the issue here. We haven't lost 4% of gdp. This is a lie that need to stop.being spouted on this forum .I have offered offered give an explainer. Thatcher championed the single market. Not the e.u. her words in the house of Lords were that she didn't like the e.u | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7 You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from? A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up. Can’t send links, try google You can use links as long as they are from a reputable site. Or you could just tell us where you found the information, so that we can go and see for ourselves. I have already used Google, and it contradicts your 'worst performing economy in the G7' claim. I thought I'd give you a chance to show where you got your information from. Without that information, I will be reluctantly forced to come to the conclusion that you're deliberately lying." Alternatively they could reply privately. I am happy to receive their links via direct message | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is.
The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here.
So skimming the posts above, in summary. no-one really knows what the benefits might be for joking a trading bloc of countries that rim the Pacific Ocean - it’s just an estimate.
However what we do know is that for trade in goods to grow in any meaningful way with the Pacific region, there will be a huge effect on the nations commitment to reducing emissions.
We also now know that the loss of GDP from leaving the EU is in the region of 4% of GDP and much of that could be regained in an instant by joining the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Thatcher knew the economic benefits were there and that is why she championed it so hard.
What possible reason therefore could there be to step into the unknown, knowing that any trade benefit would come at great cost ecologically when the economic damage could measurably be undone with little to no environmental impact.
This is ideology. Nothing more than that.
Emissions are created predominantly in the creation of a product rather than transportation.
So green isn't the issue here.
We haven't lost 4% of gdp. This is a lie that need to stop.being spouted on this forum .I have offered offered give an explainer.
Thatcher championed the single market. Not the e.u. her words in the house of Lords were that she didn't like the e.u
"We have lost 4% of GDP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up.
I haven't looked into this but from the OECD:
Among G7 countries, the United Kingdom recorded the highest annual growth in 2022 (4.0%), followed by Italy (3.8%) and Canada (3.6%), while Japa
Germany is now 0.1% below its pre covid gdp after a revision in their stats fro Dec quarter
On today ons release for the uk the uk improved its q4 from 0.8 % below to 0.6% below.
Germany is expected to contract 0.2% more in q1 2023 while the uk is expected to have grown 0.3% in jan and expected to grow by about 0.6% in q1 2023 after pmi improved from 47 in Jan then 49 in Feb and 48 in march"This is a good example of where context is important. Germany isn't trying to recover from the damage done from leaving the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up.
I haven't looked into this but from the OECD:
Among G7 countries, the United Kingdom recorded the highest annual growth in 2022 (4.0%), followed by Italy (3.8%) and Canada (3.6%), while Japa
Germany is now 0.1% below its pre covid gdp after a revision in their stats fro Dec quarter
On today ons release for the uk the uk improved its q4 from 0.8 % below to 0.6% below.
Germany is expected to contract 0.2% more in q1 2023 while the uk is expected to have grown 0.3% in jan and expected to grow by about 0.6% in q1 2023 after pmi improved from 47 in Jan then 49 in Feb and 48 in march
This is a good example of where context is important.
Germany isn't trying to recover from the damage done from leaving the EU. "So on this basis. Why is the german economy so shit remember this is the economic power house of the e.u. If the country that is responsible for a LARGE volume of the e.us trade is performing so badly without brexit.this is surely a cause for concern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is.
The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here.
So skimming the posts above, in summary. no-one really knows what the benefits might be for joking a trading bloc of countries that rim the Pacific Ocean - it’s just an estimate.
However what we do know is that for trade in goods to grow in any meaningful way with the Pacific region, there will be a huge effect on the nations commitment to reducing emissions.
We also now know that the loss of GDP from leaving the EU is in the region of 4% of GDP and much of that could be regained in an instant by joining the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Thatcher knew the economic benefits were there and that is why she championed it so hard.
What possible reason therefore could there be to step into the unknown, knowing that any trade benefit would come at great cost ecologically when the economic damage could measurably be undone with little to no environmental impact.
This is ideology. Nothing more than that.
Emissions are created predominantly in the creation of a product rather than transportation.
So green isn't the issue here.
We haven't lost 4% of gdp. This is a lie that need to stop.being spouted on this forum .I have offered offered give an explainer.
Thatcher championed the single market. Not the e.u. her words in the house of Lords were that she didn't like the e.u
We have lost 4% of GDP "You like to lie dont you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know what we should do. We should just sulk having lost £400 and remain pissed about it forever. We should never try to find anything because it won't be as good as the £400 we lost. I wish I had the negativity of you guys, life must be so much fun
However… We could very easily join the EU Single Market and Customs Union which would immediately see a significant increase in GDP without impacting our emissions obligations.
This move to join CPTPP is solely about ideology and it flies in the face of common sense. It defies any semblance of economic literacy and maturity and as such - it defines Brexit for the idiocy that it is.
The single market is something I'd love. I've said that plenty on here.
So skimming the posts above, in summary. no-one really knows what the benefits might be for joking a trading bloc of countries that rim the Pacific Ocean - it’s just an estimate.
However what we do know is that for trade in goods to grow in any meaningful way with the Pacific region, there will be a huge effect on the nations commitment to reducing emissions.
We also now know that the loss of GDP from leaving the EU is in the region of 4% of GDP and much of that could be regained in an instant by joining the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Thatcher knew the economic benefits were there and that is why she championed it so hard.
What possible reason therefore could there be to step into the unknown, knowing that any trade benefit would come at great cost ecologically when the economic damage could measurably be undone with little to no environmental impact.
This is ideology. Nothing more than that.
Emissions are created predominantly in the creation of a product rather than transportation.
So green isn't the issue here.
We haven't lost 4% of gdp. This is a lie that need to stop.being spouted on this forum .I have offered offered give an explainer.
Thatcher championed the single market. Not the e.u. her words in the house of Lords were that she didn't like the e.u
We have lost 4% of GDP
You like to lie dont you.
"No, I prefer to stick to expert advice and facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google" I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nope, factual correct, we are the worst performing economy in the G7
You keep saying this as a fact. Can you let us know where the information comes from?
A link would be nice, but if you'd rather not, then just describe where the information can be found, so we can all look it up.
I haven't looked into this but from the OECD:
Among G7 countries, the United Kingdom recorded the highest annual growth in 2022 (4.0%), followed by Italy (3.8%) and Canada (3.6%), while Japa
Germany is now 0.1% below its pre covid gdp after a revision in their stats fro Dec quarter
On today ons release for the uk the uk improved its q4 from 0.8 % below to 0.6% below.
Germany is expected to contract 0.2% more in q1 2023 while the uk is expected to have grown 0.3% in jan and expected to grow by about 0.6% in q1 2023 after pmi improved from 47 in Jan then 49 in Feb and 48 in march
This is a good example of where context is important.
Germany isn't trying to recover from the damage done from leaving the EU.
So on this basis.
Why is the german economy so shit remember this is the economic power house of the e.u.
If the country that is responsible for a LARGE volume of the e.us trade is performing so badly without brexit.this is surely a cause for concern."Not sure I follow this question. The economy doesn't "remember". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up?" Your Google skills are lacking, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking, "Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022' First link is OECD. They disagree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you "We are in 2023 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 "We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year. They definitely disagree with you. Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google" "I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up?" "Your Google skills are lacking," It's sad to see someone so stubbornly clinging onto such negativity, and making such a fool of themselves in the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Brexit has happened.
What are we going to do, compare every single deal to what we had until we maybe surpass it?
It's absolutely pointless comparing any sort of deal to Brexit, we can't change it."As has been explained to you on multiple occasions, one of the reasons given for Brexit being a good thing for the economy was being able to do our own international trade deals with the "fastest growing" and "most dynamic" parts of the world. This makes Brexit pertinent even though it cannot be changed. The fact that it has happened does not mean that its effects and benefits and shortcomings should not be assessed. Other than a bilateral deal with the USA, India or China, this is the biggest trade deal we could do. It is worth 0.08% of GDP over a decade. Better than nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023
We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year.
They definitely disagree with you.
Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further?"We are in 2023, try the IMF , Bloomberg or the latest OECD news, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 ". Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3% So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data. As you don't have any data but the uks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking, It's sad to see someone so stubbornly clinging onto such negativity, and making such a fool of themselves in the process." Your entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I couldn’t care less what you think, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023
We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year.
They definitely disagree with you.
Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further?
We are in 2023, try the IMF , Bloomberg or the latest OECD news, "None of those have any reports for Q1. BTW, all of those links are allowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks "Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023
We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year.
They definitely disagree with you.
Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further?
We are in 2023, try the IMF , Bloomberg or the latest OECD news,
None of those have any reports for Q1.
BTW, all of those links are allowed.
"It would appear our frie d is using expected growth? Not actualized growth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023
We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year.
They definitely disagree with you.
Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further?
We are in 2023, try the IMF , Bloomberg or the latest OECD news,
None of those have any reports for Q1.
BTW, all of those links are allowed.
"Indeed, can you post the links that state that the UK isn’t the worst performing economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks
Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD "They don't have the 2023 data. It's not been released other than by the mo they uk gdp data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. " Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks
Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD
They don't have the 2023 data. It's not been released other than by the mo they uk gdp data."You obviously haven’t read it properly. What is on page 7, paragraph 3, line 4 of their latest forecast | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023
We've not reported Q1 yet. I'm going on the last full year.
They definitely disagree with you.
Just give a C&P or are you scared of embarrassing yourself even further?
We are in 2023, try the IMF , Bloomberg or the latest OECD news,
None of those have any reports for Q1.
BTW, all of those links are allowed.
Indeed, can you post the links that state that the UK isn’t the worst performing economy "I've already pasted it for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. " Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. " Indeed. Tbh, I wasn’t aware that facts and experts were relevant or allowed when discussing Brexit , it’s all based on belief and magic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks
Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD
They don't have the 2023 data. It's not been released other than by the mo they uk gdp data.
You obviously haven’t read it properly. What is on page 7, paragraph 3, line 4 of their latest forecast "I genuinely feel wmbarrassed we have a grown adults acting like this in a forum. Are you that much of a child ylu can't accept you haven't read an impact assessment or know how gdp is reported? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed." You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks
Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD
They don't have the 2023 data. It's not been released other than by the mo they uk gdp data.
You obviously haven’t read it properly. What is on page 7, paragraph 3, line 4 of their latest forecast
I genuinely feel wmbarrassed we have a grown adults acting like this in a forum.
Are you that much of a child ylu can't accept you haven't read an impact assessment or know how gdp is reported?"Hold on, you asked me the exact same thing when questioning wether I had read a report. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. " You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed " Indeed. Still happens though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. " You get bans for following the rules? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. " Yep, all the time, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. Yep, all the time," You get banned for following the rules too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. You get bans for following the rules?" Yup. Anyway, I didn't intend to derail the thread past the one comment. Please continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. You get bans for following the rules? Yup. Anyway, I didn't intend to derail the thread past the one comment. Please continue. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. Yep, all the time, You get banned for following the rules too?" (I think any sane folks can work out who the main protagonists of horseshit on here are...!!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" BTW, all of those links are allowed. Not if you're someone who questions the wisdom of brexit or the integrity of the Tories. We get hounded to shit and constantly reported for absolutely anything. Bullshit, the rules clearly state they're allowed. You can say "bullshit" all you like. Doesn't change the way we get hounded by other forum users and constantly reported. Some of the reports culminate in bans. You can't be banned if you don't do anything wrong. The rules clearly state those links would be allowed Indeed. Still happens though. Yep, all the time, You get banned for following the rules too? (I think any sane folks can work out who the main protagonists of horseshit on here are...!!) " Are you brave enough to say who? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For those that are struggling type, ‘G7 economies ‘into Google I did that and the first link was this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ There's a little chart half way down that says that the UK economy grew 0.1% in Q422, against Germany's 0.4% loss. If you look at the year-on-year figures, they show the UK with 0.6% growth, compared to Japan's 0.4%. Google presented no links that said the UK was the worst performing economy in the G7. So, were your directions on how to find this information lacking? Or are you just making it all up? Your Google skills are lacking,
Google this 'economic growth g7 countries 2022'
First link is OECD. They disagree with you
We are in 2023 .
Only the uk produces monthly data. And the most recent release showed Jan growing 0.3%
So then by your own admission you are wrong when trying to use 2023 data.
As you don't have any data but the uks
Try the IMF, Bloomberg and the OECD
They don't have the 2023 data. It's not been released other than by the mo they uk gdp data.
You obviously haven’t read it properly. What is on page 7, paragraph 3, line 4 of their latest forecast
I genuinely feel wmbarrassed we have a grown adults acting like this in a forum.
Are you that much of a child ylu can't accept you haven't read an impact assessment or know how gdp is reported?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
"This is from the OBR. "The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)." "New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)." The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan. The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is. One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
This is from the OBR.
"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
"New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)."
The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan.
The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is.
One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on."Thanks for posting the obr report. See the bit about 4% donylu know where that's derived from. It'd pretty important. You see because you are taking an average of . Thr impact literally can not be 4% because its an average of 13 estimates f impact ranging from dates between 2016 and 2018. I know you've read the report. Can you confirm you acknowledge this is the case. All but 4 estimates are below 4% with the average being skewed by the 10% estimate of the world Bank. Thanks for posting that report acknowledging it does take into account, Australia, newzealand, Mexico, ceta,cptpp, india, eea efta. ( all of these are signed and likely to be signed by the end of 2023( I am probably forgetting some) Nor the individual American state deals. Government estimates are always static and always undervalue trade deals. There is no whether. There's a large difference in static and dynamic forecasts. Cptpp is an estimate you are correct. But we know the moving parts. Cptpp estimates impact assessment based on members and current trade. The obr report took an average of 13 models that didn't know what the TCA would look like . Remember these models were in majority done in 2016 and some 2018. How can you model the impact of brexit for 15 years when you don't know if the uk has a trade deal or not 4 years after the your model? So actually we have the realised data for several years and the data doesn't support the claim. Because surely if you took the expect gdp growth of the uk vs its peers ing ermany France and Italy in the e.u. the uk failure to hit those growth rates should be greater than its peers by 4% Guess what. It's not it actually outgrew Germany from 2016 even though we weren't meant to. And our forecasts for growth were worse. We certainly aren't 4% behind France. Did Germany and France brexit the e.u too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
This is from the OBR.
"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
"New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)."
The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan.
The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is.
One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on.
Thanks for posting the obr report. See the bit about 4% donylu know where that's derived from. It'd pretty important. You see because you are taking an average of .
Thr impact literally can not be 4% because its an average of 13 estimates f impact ranging from dates between 2016 and 2018. I know you've read the report. Can you confirm you acknowledge this is the case. All but 4 estimates are below 4% with the average being skewed by the 10% estimate of the world Bank.
Thanks for posting that report acknowledging it does take into account, Australia, newzealand, Mexico, ceta,cptpp, india, eea efta. ( all of these are signed and likely to be signed by the end of 2023( I am probably forgetting some)
Nor the individual American state deals.
Government estimates are always static and always undervalue trade deals. There is no whether. There's a large difference in static and dynamic forecasts.
Cptpp is an estimate you are correct. But we know the moving parts.
Cptpp estimates impact assessment based on members and current trade.
The obr report took an average of 13 models that didn't know what the TCA would look like . Remember these models were in majority done in 2016 and some 2018.
How can you model the impact of brexit for 15 years when you don't know if the uk has a trade deal or not 4 years after the your model? So actually we have the realised data for several years and the data doesn't support the claim.
Because surely if you took the expect gdp growth of the uk vs its peers ing ermany France and Italy in the e.u. the uk failure to hit those growth rates should be greater than its peers by 4%
Guess what.
It's not it actually outgrew Germany from 2016 even though we weren't meant to. And our forecasts for growth were worse. We certainly aren't 4% behind France.
Did Germany and France brexit the e.u too?
"This all reads as "blah blah" You have no better figures. What does exist estimates a substantially bigger loss from leaving the EU than joining CPTPP or anything else to date. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
This is from the OBR.
"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
"New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)."
The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan.
The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is.
One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on.
Thanks for posting the obr report. See the bit about 4% donylu know where that's derived from. It'd pretty important. You see because you are taking an average of .
Thr impact literally can not be 4% because its an average of 13 estimates f impact ranging from dates between 2016 and 2018. I know you've read the report. Can you confirm you acknowledge this is the case. All but 4 estimates are below 4% with the average being skewed by the 10% estimate of the world Bank.
Thanks for posting that report acknowledging it does take into account, Australia, newzealand, Mexico, ceta,cptpp, india, eea efta. ( all of these are signed and likely to be signed by the end of 2023( I am probably forgetting some)
Nor the individual American state deals.
Government estimates are always static and always undervalue trade deals. There is no whether. There's a large difference in static and dynamic forecasts.
Cptpp is an estimate you are correct. But we know the moving parts.
Cptpp estimates impact assessment based on members and current trade.
The obr report took an average of 13 models that didn't know what the TCA would look like . Remember these models were in majority done in 2016 and some 2018.
How can you model the impact of brexit for 15 years when you don't know if the uk has a trade deal or not 4 years after the your model? So actually we have the realised data for several years and the data doesn't support the claim.
Because surely if you took the expect gdp growth of the uk vs its peers ing ermany France and Italy in the e.u. the uk failure to hit those growth rates should be greater than its peers by 4%
Guess what.
It's not it actually outgrew Germany from 2016 even though we weren't meant to. And our forecasts for growth were worse. We certainly aren't 4% behind France.
Did Germany and France brexit the e.u too?
This all reads as "blah blah"
You have no better figures.
What does exist estimates a substantially bigger loss from leaving the EU than joining CPTPP or anything else to date."This dismantles your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the conclusion is. If we ignore Brexit. We're doing okay and this is good news. If you put it in context. This is overall not enough to counterbalance the brexit losses. And that the UK hasn't recovered from the damage done by leaving the EU. " If you view other economies. You will see they are doing badly. Believing all negative economic information flies I the face of what is happening at other g7 nations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
This is from the OBR.
"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
"New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)."
The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan.
The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is.
One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on.
Thanks for posting the obr report. See the bit about 4% donylu know where that's derived from. It'd pretty important. You see because you are taking an average of .
Thr impact literally can not be 4% because its an average of 13 estimates f impact ranging from dates between 2016 and 2018. I know you've read the report. Can you confirm you acknowledge this is the case. All but 4 estimates are below 4% with the average being skewed by the 10% estimate of the world Bank.
Thanks for posting that report acknowledging it does take into account, Australia, newzealand, Mexico, ceta,cptpp, india, eea efta. ( all of these are signed and likely to be signed by the end of 2023( I am probably forgetting some)
Nor the individual American state deals.
Government estimates are always static and always undervalue trade deals. There is no whether. There's a large difference in static and dynamic forecasts.
Cptpp is an estimate you are correct. But we know the moving parts.
Cptpp estimates impact assessment based on members and current trade.
The obr report took an average of 13 models that didn't know what the TCA would look like . Remember these models were in majority done in 2016 and some 2018.
How can you model the impact of brexit for 15 years when you don't know if the uk has a trade deal or not 4 years after the your model? So actually we have the realised data for several years and the data doesn't support the claim.
Because surely if you took the expect gdp growth of the uk vs its peers ing ermany France and Italy in the e.u. the uk failure to hit those growth rates should be greater than its peers by 4%
Guess what.
It's not it actually outgrew Germany from 2016 even though we weren't meant to. And our forecasts for growth were worse. We certainly aren't 4% behind France.
Did Germany and France brexit the e.u too?
This all reads as "blah blah"
You have no better figures.
What does exist estimates a substantially bigger loss from leaving the EU than joining CPTPP or anything else to date."Also I do have better figures. I mentioned them in the reply. If I take the imf growth expectations for g7 countries for 5 years from 2016 and I view how badly each country did vs the estimations. I should see the uk down another 4% yes? Ifnyou believe brexit has Impacted the uk by that amount | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the conclusion is. If we ignore Brexit. We're doing okay and this is good news. If you put it in context. This is overall not enough to counterbalance the brexit losses. And that the UK hasn't recovered from the damage done by leaving the EU. If you view other economies. You will see they are doing badly. Believing all negative economic information flies I the face of what is happening at other g7 nations. " Yes. They're all struggling. They didn't start at the bottom of a huge brexit trough like we did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the conclusion is. If we ignore Brexit. We're doing okay and this is good news. If you put it in context. This is overall not enough to counterbalance the brexit losses. And that the UK hasn't recovered from the damage done by leaving the EU. If you view other economies. You will see they are doing badly. Believing all negative economic information flies I the face of what is happening at other g7 nations. Yes. They're all struggling. They didn't start at the bottom of a huge brexit trough like we did. " Then it's even more worrying they're in a worse position now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the conclusion is. If we ignore Brexit. We're doing okay and this is good news. If you put it in context. This is overall not enough to counterbalance the brexit losses. And that the UK hasn't recovered from the damage done by leaving the EU. If you view other economies. You will see they are doing badly. Believing all negative economic information flies I the face of what is happening at other g7 nations. Yes. They're all struggling. They didn't start at the bottom of a huge brexit trough like we did. Then it's even more worrying they're in a worse position now." Strewth! They're not in a worse position. They're in a better position. Our growth % is clawing back some of the damage done by brexit. They didn't have brexit damage to try to undo. They should put in a banging head against a brick wall emoji. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's really weird about this article is that it mentioned a very small increase (which is an increase nonetheless) but it just can't help but tell us its nothing compared to the loss because of Brexit
Because this "benefit" is supposed to be as a consequence of Brexit.
So a small benefit has been gained at the cost of a significant loss.
+0.08% over ten years vs -4% already modelled since 2019 (3 years).
It is pertinent.
Not pertinent I am afraid the 4% drop was along run of several estimations by think tanks.
The problem being multiple g7 economies are fairing worse.
So it's difficult to pinpoint where the failed growth is due to brexit.
Cptpp as described is static rather than dynamic modelled.
This is from the OBR.
"The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information)."
"New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment)."
The Government estimates, static or dynamic are 0.08% over ten years. As most of these countries had free trade deals with the UK already it is effectively a new trade deal with Malaysia and Brunei with a marginal change to the ones with other countries. You can see the benefit of the deals with Australia and Japan.
The CPTPP estimate is a far more speculative estimate of an effect predicting future outcomes than the retrospective modelling used for the estimate of the effect of Brexit on GDP. Average or not, it is what it is.
One estimated big, on-going loss. One estimated tiny gain. You are welcome to provide some more realistic figures if you are able to. I am "afraid" that the ones given are the only ones available to either us or the Government. You can argue over them however you like, but that's what we have to judge them on.
Thanks for posting the obr report. See the bit about 4% donylu know where that's derived from. It'd pretty important. You see because you are taking an average of .
Thr impact literally can not be 4% because its an average of 13 estimates f impact ranging from dates between 2016 and 2018. I know you've read the report. Can you confirm you acknowledge this is the case. All but 4 estimates are below 4% with the average being skewed by the 10% estimate of the world Bank.
Thanks for posting that report acknowledging it does take into account, Australia, newzealand, Mexico, ceta,cptpp, india, eea efta. ( all of these are signed and likely to be signed by the end of 2023( I am probably forgetting some)
Nor the individual American state deals.
Government estimates are always static and always undervalue trade deals. There is no whether. There's a large difference in static and dynamic forecasts.
Cptpp is an estimate you are correct. But we know the moving parts.
Cptpp estimates impact assessment based on members and current trade.
The obr report took an average of 13 models that didn't know what the TCA would look like . Remember these models were in majority done in 2016 and some 2018.
How can you model the impact of brexit for 15 years when you don't know if the uk has a trade deal or not 4 years after the your model? So actually we have the realised data for several years and the data doesn't support the claim.
Because surely if you took the expect gdp growth of the uk vs its peers ing ermany France and Italy in the e.u. the uk failure to hit those growth rates should be greater than its peers by 4%
Guess what.
It's not it actually outgrew Germany from 2016 even though we weren't meant to. And our forecasts for growth were worse. We certainly aren't 4% behind France.
Did Germany and France brexit the e.u too?
This all reads as "blah blah"
You have no better figures.
What does exist estimates a substantially bigger loss from leaving the EU than joining CPTPP or anything else to date."You are given a full and comprehensive explanation of the situation and your best response is blah, blah. Excellent  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
